Gullikson v. City of Milwaukee Municipality

NICHOLAS GULLIKSON, Plaintiff,v.CITY OF MILWAUKEE MUNICIPALITY, and COUNTY OF MILWAUKEE, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER SCREENING AND DISMISSING THE
AMENDED COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 11)

HON.
PAMELA PEPPER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On
January 23, 2017, the plaintiff, Nicholas Gullikson, filed a
complaint seeking return of $1, 612 that was confiscated from
his residence during a drug traffic raid. Dkt No. 1.
Magistrate Judge William Duffin screened the plaintiff's
complaint, and explained that a district attorney is not
required to institute forfeiture proceedings in Wisconsin for
property derived from the commission of any crime. Dkt. No.
10 at 8. Instead, a person claiming the right to such
property can initiate return of that property through
procedures set forth in Wis.Stat. §968.20. Id.

Judge
Duffin then instructed the plaintiff to file an amended
complaint: (1) outlining the steps he took to initiate return
of his property under Wis.Stat. §968.20, and (2)
describing how the state's procedure under §968.20
was constitutionally inadequate. Id. at 10. This
matter comes before the court for screening of the amended
complaint. Dkt. No. 11.

I.
SCREENING OF THE PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT

A.
Standard for Screening Complaints

The
Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to
screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against
a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). The court may
dismiss a case, or part of it, if the claims alleged are
“frivolous or malicious, ” fail to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B).

To
state a claim under the federal notice pleading system, the
plaintiff must provide a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief[.]”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The complaint need not plead specific
facts, and need only provide “fair notice of what the .
. . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
“Labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action” will
not do. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

The
factual content of the complaint must allow the court to
“draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
Allegations must “raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Factual allegations, when accepted as true, must state a
claim that is “plausible on its face.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

On
September 23, 2014, the Wisconsin High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area (HIDTA) raided the plaintiff's home.
Dkt. No. 11, ¶ 3. During the raid, HIDTA seized $1, 612
from the plaintiff's residence. Id. According to
the plaintiff, the confiscated money was not related to drug
trafficking and “did not bare any of the same serial
numbers as the money used in the control buy that justified
the raid.” Id., ¶¶ 6- 7.

On
December 23, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion in the
Milwaukee County Circuit Court, seeking return of the money.
Id., ¶ 8. A Milwaukee County staff attorney
replied that the motion could not be filed because the
plaintiff had not served all of the interested parties.
Id. It is unclear what actions, if any, the
plaintiff took after receiving this letter.

C.
Legal Analysis of Alleged Facts

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;To
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. &sect;1983, the plaintiff must
allege that: 1) he was deprived of a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States; and 2) the
deprivation was visited upon him by a person or persons
acting under color of state law. Buchanan-Moore v. County
of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.